BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF:
PETITION OF CROMWELL-PHOENIX,
INC.
FOR AN ADJUSTED STANDARD FROM
35
ILL. ADM. CODE 218.204(c)
TO:
Dorothy Gunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson
Center
100 W. Randolph Street, Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Eric Boyd
LorenaNeal
Seyfarth
Shaw
55
E.
Monroe Street, Suite 4200
Chicago, Illinois
60603-5
803
)
)
)
)
)
NOTICE
AS 03-05
(Adjusted Standard
-
Air)
CLERK’S
OFFICE
JUL.
1
6
2003
STATE OF
ILLINOIS
Po//u~j0,~
Control Board
Bradley Halloran, Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center
100 West Randolph Street, Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
PLEASE
TAKE
NOTICE that I have today filed with the Office ofthe Pollution
Control Board the RECOMMENDATION ofthe Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, a
copy ofwhich is herewith
served
upon you.
Date:
July
14, 2003
1021
North
Grand
Avenue East
P.O.Box
19276
Spring field, IL 62794-9276
217/782-5544
ILLiNOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
By:_________
Charles E. Matoesian
Assistant Counsel
Division of
Legal
Counsel
THIS FILING IS SUBMITTED ON
RECYCLED PAPER
BEFORE THE
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARDRECEIVED~
CLERK
S
OFFICE
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
JUL
1
6
2003
PETITION OF CROMWELL-PHOENIX,
INC.
)
AS 03-05
STATE OF IWNOIS
FOR AN ADJUSTED STANDARD FROM
)
(Adjusted Standa!
~°‘~
Control Board
35
ILL. ADM. CODE 2 18.204(c)
)
)
RECOMMENDATION OF THE ILLINOIS EPA
The
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(“Illinois
EPA”)
hereby
submits
its
recommendation in the above captioned matter pursuant to the regulationsofthe Pollution Control
Board
(“Board”) at
35
Iii.
Adm.
Code
Section
104.416.
The Illinois
EPA recommends
that the
Board
GRANT
the
petition of Cromwell-Phoenix,
Inc.,
subject
to
the
terms
and
conditions
contained in this recommendation.
In support of this recommendation, the Illinois EPA states as
follows:
BACKGROUND
1.
Cromwell-Phoenix,
Inc. (“Cromwell”) filedits Petition forAdjusted Standard (“Petition”) on
May 29, 2003, pursuant to section 28.1
of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act (“Act”), 415
ILCS
5/28.1,
and the regi~ilationsofthe Board under 35111. Adm. Code Subpart D Section
104.402.
The Petition requestedthat the BQard grant Cromwell an adjustedstandard from the volatile organic
material (“VOM”) emissionlimitation of35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 218, Subpart F, Section 218.204(c),
as it ajplies to the VOM emissions from Cromwell’s corrosion inhibiting (“CI”) packaging materials
production facility in Alsip,
Cook COunty, Illinois.
2.
This Petition for an Adjusted Standard results from Violation NoticeA-2001-00265
issued
by
the Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(“Illinois
EPA”)
on
November
20,
2001,
and
follows an inspection ofthe Alsip facility.
One ofthe allegations in the Violation Notice was that
Cromwell
failed
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
reasonably
available
control technology
(“RACT”) emission limitation
set forth
in
35
Ill. Adm.
Code
218,
Subpart F,
concerning paper
coating operations.
Following several telephone conferences
with representatives of the Illinois
EPA, Cromwell submitted a Compliance Commitment Agreement (“CCA”) on February 19,2002.
The CCA stated that the VOM in
Cromwell’s products
do more than act as a vehicle for active
ingredients.
Rather, the VOM act as a paper softener, improving paper folding qualities and aid in
the transfer of corrosion
inhibitor compounds
to
the wrapped metal parts over
a length of time.
Thus, the VOM are actually designed to stay in the paper product.
Cromwell
further notified the
Illinois EPA that while it was trying to find alternative coating materials which would comply with
RACT, a reformulation might impair product quality and actually increase VOM emissions.
The
increase would be due to the need for dryers to remove excess water from the paper.
3.
The Illinois EPA responded with a CCArejection onMarch 7,2002, and a NoticeofIntentto
Pursue Legal Action on March 19, 2002.
Further negotiations ensued, with theresultthat Mr. David
E. Bloomberg, a coatings specialist with the Illinois EPA’s AirQuality Planning Section, visited the
Cromwell
facility on
May
9,
2002.
Based
upon
Mr.
Bloomberg’s
findings,
and
subsequent
discussions between Cromwell and the Illinois EPA, the parties agreed that a petition for adjusted
standard was warranted.
.4.
Cromwell filed an application for a Clean AirAct Permit Program (“CAAPP”) permit with
the Illinois EPA on March 29, 2002.
The application assertsthat Cromwell is a minor source under
the CAAPP and Cromwell seeks a
lifetime operating
permit.
The CAAPP permit application is
currently under consideration.
5.
On June 10, 2003, Cromwell
filed a ProofofPublication of Notice with the Board for this
2
adjusted standardpetition.
The notice appeared in the
Chicago Tribune
on May 31,2003.
On June
19, 2003, the Board found that Cromwell’s notice met the requirements ofSection
28.1 ofthe Act
and of 35 Ill. Adm. Code Section 104.408.
TheBoard further found that the Cromwell petition met
the requirements of 35 Ill.
Adm. Code Section 104.406
and accepted the matter for hearing.
6.
Pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm. Code Section 104.416, the Illinois EPA is requiredto file a response
to a petition for adjusted standard within 45 days of filing.
DESCRIPTION OF THE FACILITY
7.
Available information indicates the Cromwell
facility is
located in Alsip,
Cook
County,
Illinois.
(Pet. App. at 4).
Cromwell is an Illinois corporation and employs 31
people in its
98,000
square foot building.
Id.
The Cromwell facility emits approximately five to six tons ofVOM per
year.
Id. at
14.
Of this, less than five tons come from CI production operations.
~.
The Illinois
EPA accepts Cromwell’s description ofits CI packaging materials production facility and process
description and incorporates by reference Section D ofthe current Petition.
COMPLIANCE ALTF1~NATI
YES
8.
Cromwell asserts in its Petition that its operaL.:.r~s
were not contemplated by the regulations
at
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code,
Part 218,
Subpart F.
(Pet.
Application at 8).
More specifically, unlike
conventional coating operations where VOM solvents
are used as carriers ofpigments and other
solids, and the VOM solvents are intended to be evaporated, the VOMcomponents in Cromwell’s CI
solutions are intended to remain in the
CI packaging products in order to perform their essentialCI
functions.
(Id. at 8, 9). Accordingly, CromwelJ., by design, seeks to retain the VOM components in
the product.
Id. at
9.
A high molecular weight, low volatility VOM was therefore
selected
by
Cromwell to enhance retention in the product.
j4.
3
I
9.
ThePaper Coating rules found at 35111. Adm. Code 218, Subpart F, were predicatedupon the
belief that solventacts as a carrier and evaporates afterthe paperhas been coated and the associated
resins or pigments
impregnated within the paper.
Cromwell uses
liquid
organic components to
impregnate the paper, but these are components intended to remain in the paper because oftheir CI
effect.
They are thus an integral part ofthe product.
(Pet. .App. 9
-
10). Cromwell asserts that its
processretains over
95
ofthe organic liquidsapplied, whereas in conventional coating operations
virtuallyall solvents are driven offfrom the product(96
ormore).
(Pet. App. at 10). Accordingly,
less than 10
ofCromwell’s products require the use ofinfra-red (“IR”) dryers.
(Pet. App. at 6). JR
drying is only needed when the product contains excess water which needs to be driven off.
Id.
10.
An alternative
to
VOM use
would
involve
the
use of extra water in
the
CI
solution.
Cromwell claims that to have excess water present in its CI inhibiting products is undesirable. j~.
Excess water causes the fibers ofthe paperproducts to expand and become wrinkledand welted. Id.
This makesthe product difficultto handle and prevents the paper from getting a good wrap on the
metal items being protectedby the CI paper.
~.
at 11.
Cromwell asserts that increased waterusage
on the CI paperproductwould have a negative impact on the economicviability oftheCI production
operations. j4.
As such, if additional water were usedto replacesome oftheVOM present in the CI
solution, additional heated drying operations would be necessary to drive offthe excess water.
4.
11.
Cromwell asserts that this would cause additional VOM emissions as theVOM components
of the
CI
solution would
evaporate along with
the water.
~4.
When coupled with the
energy
requirements of the dryers, reformulated CI solution would result in higher net emissions ofVOM
and reduce or eliminate any environmental benefits from reduced VOM usage.
4.
12.
.
Cromwell
obtained
the
services of a
consultant,
ERM,
Inc.,
to
assess
the technical
and
4
economic feasibility of installing
add-on
control
devices.
(Pet.
App.
at
12).
The
consultant
determined that thefeasible control options were oxidation and a-combination-adsorption/oxidation
system.
Id.
13.
Cromwell asserts that the RACT analysis ofERM, Inc.
(Pet. Exhibit A) found the cost of
installing add-on oxidation oradsorption/oxidation controls at Cromwell to be excessive.
14.
The
analysis found that the least expensive option would cost approximately $25,000 per ton ofVOM
controlled.
(Pet. App. Exhibit A at 9).
Compliance demonstations would add to this cost.
j4. at 12.
The Illinois EPA finds this analysis acceptable.
PROPOSED
ADJUSTED STANDARD
14.
Cromwell
has
requested
an
adjusted
standard
from
the
Board’s
air
pollution
control
requirements found at 35
Ill. Adm~Code Subpart F, Section
2 18.204(c), insofar as that regulation
applies to theVOM emissions from Cromwell’s CI packaging materials production facilityin Alsip,
Cook County, Illinois.
TheIllinois EPArecommends that theBoard GRANT Cromwell’s petition,
and
requests
that
the Board allow Cromwell
to
operate
its
CI
packaging
materials production
operations so long as it complies
with the following conditions:
1.
The total actual VOM emissions from the entire Cromwell
Alsip facility shall not
exceed 25 tons per year.
2.
The Versil Pak wax laminating coatings shall continue to meet the applicable VOM
content limitations under 35 Ill.
Adm. Code
Part 218, Subpart F.
3.
The web fed and sheet fed CI.coating and printing lines shall use only CI
solutions
which,
as-applied, do not exceed 8.3 lbs. VOM per gallon, less water.
4.
Cromwell shall operate in full compliance with all other applicable provisions of35
5
Ill. Adm. Code Part 218, including but not limited to, Subpart F.
5.
Cromwell shall continue to investigate CI coatingswith a reduced VOM content and,
where
practicable,
shall substitute
current
coatings
with
lower
VOM
content
as
long as
such
substitution does not result in a net increase in VOM emissions. An annual report summarizing the
activities and results ofthese investigatoryefforts shall be prepared by Cromwell and submitted to
the Illinois EPA Bureau ofAir, Compliance and Enforcement Section.
6.
The reliefgranted in this proceeding shall be limited to the equipment and emission
sources at the Cromwell Alsip facilityas ofJuly 14, 2003, and which were identifiedin the CAAPP
application as filed on March 29,
2002.
7.
Cromwell
shall
operate
in
full
compliance
with
the
Clean
Air
Act,
Illinois
Environmental Protection Act and other applicable regulations not otherwise discussed herein.
8.
Cromwell
shall
continue
to
report
all
annual
emissions
to
the
Illinois
EPA
conmiensurate with the requirements of35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 254.
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
15.
The intent ofthe regulations promulgated under 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 218
is to implement
RACT for VOM sources in the Chicago ozone nonattainment area.
16.
The Cromwell facility emits approximately five to six tons ofVOM per year.
14.
at 14.
Of
this, less than five tons come from CI production operations.
14.
17.
The genesis of this
adjusted standard
is
the
unique circumstances of the
Cromwell
CI
operations. Unlike thetypical papercoating facility, Cromwell wantsto retain the VOMin thepaper
product.
This unusual situation means that the typical VOM reduction techniques would
lead to
greater overall VOM emissions.
Cromwell maintains, and theIllinois EPA agrees,that addingwater
6
to the CI
solution would increase VOM emissions from thisprocess due to.the subsequent needto
drive off the added water and the concomitant evaporation of VOM.
Cromwell further maintains
that
its
analysis identified two
forms of control
options,
oxidation
and
a
combination
carbon
adsorption/oxidation system, which although technically feasible,
would result in high installation
costs and high costs per ton ofVOM reduced.
14.
at
12.
18.
Overall, it
is
the
confluence
of these unique
circumstances that
allows
the
Agency to
recommend that
the Board
grant
this
adjusted
standard.
Considered together,
the
low
VOM
emissions,
the fact that the Subpart F rules did
not
anticipate an operation
like Cromwell’s, the
increased
VOM emissions
from a
lower VOM CI
solution, and the high cost of add-on control
technology, favor an adjusted standard for Cromwell.
STANDARD
OF
REVIEW
19.
Section
28.1 ofthe Act states that the Board may grant individual adjusted standards from
rules of general
applicability
whenever the
Board
determines that
an
applicant can justify
an
adjustment.
In adopting
a
rule, of general
applicability,
the
Board
may
specify the
level
of
justification required ofa petitioner for an adjusted standard. Ifa rule ofgeneral applicability does
not contain a level ofjustification that the petitioner must meet to obtain an adjusted standard, the
requirements ofSection 28.1(c) ofthe Act apply.
Section 28.1(c) states
that the Board may grant
individual adjusted standards whenever the Board determines that:
(1)
Factors relating to that petitioner are substantially and sufficiently different
from the factors relied upon by the Board in adopting the general regulations
applicable to that petitioner;
(2)
The existence ofthose factorsjustifies an adjusted standard;
(3)
The requested standard will
not result in
environmental or health
effects
7
substantiallyand sufficientlymore adverse thanthe effects consideredby the
Board in adopting the rule ofgeneral applicability;
and
(4)
The adjusted standard is consistent with any applicable federal law.
20.
Theregulation ofgeneral applicability from which Cromwell seeks an adjusted standard, 35
Ill.
Adm. Code §218.204(c), does not specify a level ofjustification that Cromwell must satisfy to
obtain an adjusted standard.
Therefore, Cromwell must satisfy the level ofjustification set forth in
Section 28.1(c) ofthe Act.
As summarized below, the requested adjusted standard for Cromwell’s
corrosion inhibiting paper operations is justified.
21.
The Illinois
EPA
agrees with
Cromwell’s
analysis of the justification
for its
proposed
adjusted standard as set forth in Section H ofthe Petition, and hereby incorporates this section by
reference.
The Paper
Coating Rules at Section
218.204(c)
simply did not anticipate the type of
operation Cromwell maintains. Unlike most manufacturers, Cromwell needs the VOMto remain in
the paper product.
Thus,
it is
in Cromwell’s
interest to keep VOM emissions
low.
In addition,
currently identified alternatives to the VOM solution such as a reduced VOM content would most
likely increase VOM emissions.
This results from the presence ofadditional water, which cannot
remain in the paperproduct.
Becausethe watermust be eliminated, or drivenoff, additional dryers
would
need to
be
installed.
Unfortunately,
driving off the water would inadvertently drive off
additional
VOM.
(Pet.
App. at
15).
What is
more, the identified emission control technology,
namely oxidation and a combination carbon adsorption/oxidation system, involve high installation
and VOM reduction costs.
Such costs exceed the requirements of RACT.
CONSISTENCY WITH FEDERAL LAW
22.
The Board
may grant the proposed adjusted standard consistent with
federal
law under
8
Section
110 ofthe Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §74 10, which grants the individual states the authority
to promulgate a plan forthe implementation, maintenance, and enforcement ofair quality standards,
subject to approval by USEPA.
Pursuant to federal law, states also have the authority to revise such
a plan, subjectto USEPA approval. By followingits adjusted standard procedurewith respectto the
Board’s federally authorized and
approved air emission regulations,
the Board is
exercising
the
authority granted to the states through Section
110 ofthe Clean Air Act.
If the requested adjusted
standard
is
adopted
by the Board,
Illinois
EPA has the authority and
will submit
the adjusted
standard to USEPA as a SIP revision, thus complying with federal law.
HEARING
23.
Cromwell has requested a hearing before the Pollution Control
Board.
WHEREFORE,
the
Illinois
EPA
recommends
that
Cromwell’s
Petition
for
Adjusted
Standard be GRANTED, and an order be entered adopting the adjusted standard with the specific
language presented in this Recommendation.
Respectfully submitted,
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
By:~~~”~
Dated: July
14, 2003
Charles E. Matoesian
Assisfant Counsel
Division of Legal Counsel
1020 North Grand Avenue East
P.O. Box
19276
Springfield, Illinois
627949276
(217)782-5544
(217)782-9807 Facsimile
9
STATE OF
ILLINOIS
COUNTY OF SANGAMON
)
)SS.
)
PROOF OF SERVICE
I,
the undersigned,
on oath statethat
I have
served the attached Recommendation upon
the person to whom it is directed, by placing it in an envelope addressed to:
TO:
Dorothy
Gunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center
100 W. Randolph Street, Suite 11-500
Chicago, illinois 60601
Eric Boyd
Lorena Neal
Seyfarth
Shaw
55
E.
Monroe Street, Suite 4200
Chicago, illinois 60603-5803
Bradley Halloran, Hearing Officer
illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center
100 West Randolph Street, Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60661
and mailing it by First Class Mail from Springfield, illinois on July
14, 2003, with sufficient
postage affixed.
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN
TO
BEFORE ME
this
14th
day of July,
2003
Notai’y Public
•
“OFFICIAL
SEAL”
Stephen C. Ewart
Notary Public, State of
Illinois
MyCommisnon Exp~
11/1612006